From what I've read, Brando agreed to join the cast in 1975, but Donner was hired in 1977, so that can't be right.
Nolan's Batman
- Thread starter Mockney
- Start date
From what I've read, Brando agreed to join the cast in 1975, but Donner was hired in 1977, so that can't be right.
For the amount of money he was offered for the smallest amount of work Brando would have been an idiot not to sign up.
You are semi correct in that the Salkinds wanted to have Brando in one of their movies but that was before they had actually started working on Superman.
They spoke to him at one of the film festivals in 1975/76 & he agreed to having a role in the film then but they hadn't even started the story for S:TM.
It wasn't until Donner & Tom Mankiewicz rewrote the original S:TM script from a campy comedic script to the script we have today that they then approached Brando for the role of Jor-EL.
Gene Hackman had actually refused the role of Lex but changed his mind when he found out that Brando was cast as Jor-El, so that would also suggest it was much later in the process that they got Brando onboard.
If you are interested in the history of the Superman character then I would recommend the book "Superman vs. Hollywood: How Fiendish Producers, Devious Directors, and Warring Writers Grounded an American Icon"
Superman is a great character with shit villains.
They're not. The effects are what make it look like a 70s movie, but they're great for their time. What makes it terrible by modern standards is the awful dialogue (Though props for "there's only one P in rapist") odd pacing and terrible hammy acting from everyone but Brando & Reeves. Kidder is a woeful Lois Lane and anything with Perry White is unbearably hammy, dodgily acted & scripted ("Hey, Clark Kent may just be a mild mannered reporter, but he's the fastest typer I've ever seen!")
It's a very camp silly film that would be laughed at if made now. But because it wasn't, it's pros outweigh it's cons in that genre. It certainly was a big deal and trail blazing for it's time, but IN that genre. The point being, people aren't judging these films on their genre anymore. Which isn't necessarily a bad thing fwiw.
No he's not. He's a shit character. It's not the villains fault, it's his fault. He can do everything. Super strength and speed. Can change time. Shoots lasers with his eyes. Freeze breath. His hidden identity is putting on a pair of glasses. He's got one weakness and that's some kind of rock from his home world that blew up and was really far away from Earth but somehow bad guys get a hold of it.
Yes there is that, he does have too many powers and not enough weaknesses. But he also has an interesting moral choice between conquering Earth to protect it from itself, or leaving it as it is and acting just as the "big boy scout".
He is alone on Earth, more alone than any other super hero. He will outlive his wife, his friends, his children.
He is a character that needs to take part in war to be interesting, being an Army to himself. And yet all that he is ever shown is fighting a bald headed scientist.
This image seems to disprove that:
Dated August 1976 - Guy Hamilton is listed as director and both Brando and Hackman to star.
Thats just what the films have told you. He's got tons of villains that have never been shown on screen that are more than a threat to him. Kryptonite is only one of his vunerabilities. Darkseid would make a great villain for the piece. Where as Batman is trying to save a city, Superman is trying to save a world.
Exactly. And in the films, Luthor is never even depicted as a scientist, he's just a bizarre underworld millionaire with no particular ability.
Darkseid was created basically because Superman was too powerful.
Another character is Doomsday but he was such an overkill that they used him sparingly.
Basically these characters are the imagination of three 8 year old boys measuring their cocks.
Boy 1: "I can fly"
Boy 2: "I can fly and shoot lasers"
Boy 3: "I can fly and shoot lasers and I'm super strong"
and so forth until all of the have all the powers.
Utter tripe. Darkseid was created by Jack Kirby for his new gods stories. A complete character with his own ethos and background.
First appeared in a Superman comic.
The thought process didn't go like this
"I'm going to make a new series called New Gods with this badass villain called Darkseid who wants to wipe out all free will."
Then later thought
"Hmm...I'm gonna have him meet Superman and let them have it out a little. That will be interesting."
Of course he had Superman in mind. No other Superhero could face him.
edit: We're derailing the thread too much me thinks.
First appeared in Jimmy Olsen comic as a promotion for the new series coming out because Jimmy Olsen believe it or not was the best selling title DC had at the time. The story of the new gods was fully in place and yeah Kirby made shit loads of characters and helped develop their stories just for the sake of their stories.
There are about 5 superhero characters in the DC universe that could face him and have.
Yerah we are derailing the thread we'll end it here.
I have no idea what is happening here but I liked Smallville, that's all.
Aye I admit, both that I don't read the comic books and that I am mostly talking about transferring Superman to the big screen.
The problem I find is its nearly always Superman saving the world alone. Any job that Superman can solve alone is a job that probably doesn't require Superman in the first place.
As you say Batman is trying to save a city, Superman is trying to save the world. So he should be trying to do exactly that, alongside armies, war, devastation, etc
Watched this and quite enjoyed, first half of the movie I wasn't entirely convinced but loved the part of him being in the pit. Bane also was awesome as well, Bane is usually super huge but think they pulled it off well and Hardy despite not being able to see him speaking he was able to convey his message brilliantly.
I must say some of the comments in this thread really are nonsense, people going on about how some aspects aren't believable though I suppose a billionaire dressing up in a batman costume having gadgets that probably couldn't exist and saving his city is bloody believable! Also I wish people would stop over hyping the Dark Knight, yes it was great and yes Heath Ledger put in a truly spectacular performance but I do wonder if he hadn't passed away what the view on that movie and his performance would be. It might sound bad saying this but his unfortunate passing away almost made the movie immune to any criticism. Also I thought Christian Bale as usual was superb throughout the whole trilogy as was Michael Cane, Gary Oldman as well with another top notch performance.
I must say some of the comments in this thread really are nonsense, people going on about how some aspects aren't believable though I suppose a billionaire dressing up in a batman costume having gadgets that probably couldn't exist and saving his city is bloody believable! Also I wish people would stop over hyping the Dark Knight, yes it was great and yes Heath Ledger put in a truly spectacular performance but I do wonder if he hadn't passed away what the view on that movie and his performance would be. It might sound bad saying this but his unfortunate passing away almost made the movie immune to any criticism. Also I thought Christian Bale as usual was superb throughout the whole trilogy as was Michael Cane, Gary Oldman as well with another top notch performance.
I re-watched the Mask of the Phantasm (animated movie) the other night and it is still (IMO) the best Batman film.
Just watched it again and it was much better than on first viewing. An excellent end to the trilogy, and I honestly think it will hold more replay value than TDK. In fact I think it's a better all-round film. As has been said already, there aren't really any more plot holes, or moments where they ask you to suspend disbelief, than there were in the previous films. But for some reason, it's receive a lot more criticism. I still stand by my points on the ending though, even if just for argument's sake.
Check out under the red hood. Also Dark Knight returns part 1 is out soon.
Under the red hood was excellent. I can't wait for the dark knight returns, that should be epic.
I don't buy the myth that Ledger's performance in the movie was overhyped at all. I thought it was brilliant and that he'd have received the same praise had he been alive. It didn't make it immune to criticism either since, despite the acclaim, there has been plenty of it at times.
It wasn't just him in that movie though. Bale put in another solid performance, while I thought Eckart as Dent was brilliant as well and didn't receive enough praise. Same with Oldman as Gordon.
Well I too went to watch it for the second time tonight... And i can honestly say I agree with everything you said about it. I found myself enjoying it much more this time round, which is surprising after all the nitpicking we've entered in this thread. I still found myself immersed with the film and the universe itself and not one time did any of the nitpicking affect it for me. In fact a lot of things felt like they were cleared up - for instance I think it clicked what Banes backstory truly was now, but let's not get into that now
Definitely a great end to the trilogy and I do believe it will have better replay value too. It maybe receiving a few bits of criticism now, but I think it will stand the test of time and rise at the other side. Corny, I know. 
Well, occasionally. He fights for truth, justice and the American way after all. Wasn't he was invented as an allegory for Jews in America? The ultimate immigrant?
The stupidest part of Superman. Apart from his powers. And his costume. And his allergy. And his name. Is that on top of his barmy disguise, there's no need for him to be disguised anyway. I mean, in most adaptations, Lois Lane thinks Clark Kent is an loser, but loves Superman. And Superman, like, bangs her, and marries her, and all sorts of shit. So, who's this disguise meant to be protecting? Shouldn't he be wooing her as Clark and ignoring her as Superman? They're doing it wrong!
Again comics are very different.
Now be warned everyone. I'm finally going to Dark Knight Rises tonight. I will then mull over it. Then I will report in, review and probably have huge arguments with everyone.
Could he not have just jumped out and floated away with his magic flying cape? Perhaps it's more believable that he can do stuff like that than simultaneously fly two Bat planes.
Well just seen it, thoroughly enjoyed it. It was very silly and childish though in the final third with a huge continuity error. I'll get into it more detail later though.
All I can say is I can't wait for the reboot, we've had camp and ultra real, now it's time to make the 2 meetin the middle and give us the Batman I've been waiting for. One more in line with the Arkham games.
I watched it for the second time tonight, at a regular cinema as opposed to the IMAX for the first watch - it doesn't compare on a regular screen.. but anyway I thought the film was better with the second watch. I may have to watch it once more at IMAX just to cement what the viewing experience really should be like.
Didn't think the ending was as great as it was being made out to be. Though I liked the sentiment in this one, the Dark Knight is still the best one for me in the trilogy.
Just finished watching it. It wasn't terrible but it was really problematic for me. One reason is that I really like Batman Begin's and thought that the more 'serious' tone of the TDK, was not only a false step but also failed to create a continuity with the previous film. TDKR continues in this vein.
Having said all that, the production values were solid. Music, acting, effects are masterful. Which all make the film watchable and even entertaining but they don't make up for the scripting.
It takes itself way too seriously. Now I'm not against comic books taking themselves seriously but when the story is told as a fascist diatribe, then I tend to get a little exasperated. Comic book fascism is a useful tool, upon which great tales can be woven (read anything by Ditko). And the accompanying moral rigidity is the corner stone to all our great fairy tales. But if you are looking for real world authenticity then such simplicity doesn't cut it for me. Bane's first role as revolutionary is to release and arm dangerous criminals. That's not anarchy, it's stupidity. The unarmed police marching on the armed people, worryingly showed the curious dangers of citizen brutality. And as for the blonde hair, blue eyed boy, in a packed stadium, belting out the national anthem, well that was pure Riefenstahl.
It's an authoritarian depiction of revolution. A bourgeois fantasy, whereby money, power and state authority, is the only thing to protect us from the brutality of those beneath. Which seems like an utterly bizzare juxtaposition, to the current real world climate of capatalist collapse and Arab Spring revolution.
I think the biggest problem for me lies with the tone of the film. It is easier to accept the absurdities that occur in the film (and the 2 previous films) if framed within an absurd world. Begin's did this beautifully. It was able to blend the comic book world with just enough realism, so as to not look odd. But the darker and more serious the films began to take themselves, the more outlandish certain elements appeared. For instance the Scare Crow works brilliantly in Begin's but could anyone really see him in Rises? No, instead the character is promoted to tribunal judge.
I thought the narrative was too sprawling and lacked cohesion. One minute Bruce is pining for Rachel and the next he's bunked up with a company executive. Batman has his arse kicked by Bane, has his back broken, is thrown in a pit, climbs out and then kicks Bane's arse. All while a bomb is ticking. Parts of it were too ponderous and others were not given enough screen time. Too much was happening too fast one minute, then too little, too slowly the next.
Also on a completely personal point, I wanted to see more of Batman versus Bane. Not a little bit of Batman and Bane, sharing equal screen time with Cat Woman, Robin, Comissioner Gordan, the black Q, Alfred and 2 old guys in a pit.
I was interested in Bane at first. The mask, the voice the stature, all intrigued me but the character exposition was so clunky and the characterisation and motivations remained one dimensional. He could have easily been made a more complex character. One that the audience could understand and possibly even root for.
It's an authoritarian depiction of revolution. A bourgeois fantasy, whereby money, power and state authority, is the only thing to protect us from the brutality of those beneath. Which seems like an utterly bizzare juxtaposition, to the current real world climate of capatalist collapse and Arab Spring revolution.
I think the biggest problem for me lies with the tone of the film. It is easier to accept the absurdities that occur in the film (and the 2 previous films) if framed within an absurd world. Begin's did this beautifully. It was able to blend the comic book world with just enough realism, so as to not look odd. But the darker and more serious the films began to take themselves, the more outlandish certain elements appeared. For instance the Scare Crow works brilliantly in Begin's but could anyone really see him in Rises? No, instead the character is promoted to tribunal judge.
I thought the narrative was too sprawling and lacked cohesion. One minute Bruce is pining for Rachel and the next he's bunked up with a company executive. Batman has his arse kicked by Bane, has his back broken, is thrown in a pit, climbs out and then kicks Bane's arse. All while a bomb is ticking. Parts of it were too ponderous and others were not given enough screen time. Too much was happening too fast one minute, then too little, too slowly the next.
Also on a completely personal point, I wanted to see more of Batman versus Bane. Not a little bit of Batman and Bane, sharing equal screen time with Cat Woman, Robin, Comissioner Gordan, the black Q, Alfred and 2 old guys in a pit.
I was interested in Bane at first. The mask, the voice the stature, all intrigued me but the character exposition was so clunky and the characterisation and motivations remained one dimensional. He could have easily been made a more complex character. One that the audience could understand and possibly even root for.
Having said all that, the production values were solid. Music, acting, effects are masterful. Which all make the film watchable and even entertaining but they don't make up for the scripting.
The revolution aspect was a hoax though. The main aim was to atomise the city.
Part 1: Comparisons
Here goes. After finally being able to read through this thread I can now give my 2pence worth and with regards to other posts an topics. It's going to be a bit of a read so be warned.
Here goes. After finally being able to read through this thread I can now give my 2pence worth and with regards to other posts an topics. It's going to be a bit of a read so be warned.
Part 1: Comparisons
Everyone loves putting labels on things and compartmentalising stuff,I'll happily oblige. So how does it rate in comparison to the previous two. Simple it's equally as good as the previous two. Begins is undoubtedly my favourite and for me and the most complete film but I can happily argue that anyone of them is equally as good as the other. They are 3 distinct films with distinct styles to them. Each has their own gripes and can be nitpicked to death. So as we're comparing them constantly here's my take.
Batman Begins (9): is Nolans open love letter to the character and the comic books. He takes the best of the books that we had been reading once DC finally was able to ignore the CCA and start writing more grown up tales again. The ultimate versions being Batman year one , The Dark Knight Returns and the Long Halloween (which heavily influenced all three films). The film for me is almost flawless and is a drive through of all the greatest moments in Batlore. Everyone is saying this is original and a great version, for us comic book geeks it's more a case of, at last. It is more personal in its feeling and even though the story is very epic (the first half especially), the second is more closed in, darker (visually) and intimate experience in comparison to the other 2.
The Dark Knight (9): Again he takes heavily from the comics (Batman Year one, The long Halloween, Dark Knight returns and the Killing Joke) but this is more a case of Nolan stretching his film wings here. We're treated to an amalgam of Nolans loves. The Dark Knight is a mixture of Bond, heist, cop and good old crime mafia style films all mixed into a lovely cinematic experience that is grand in visual scale and style, musically amazing whilst topped off with a amazing performance by Ledger. There are times where it threatens to collapse under the weight of itself. The city becomes more of a character in this film. More modern and epic in its' scale. It provides the visual and plot backdrops of the film itself. Even moving to Hong Kong (was it Hong Kong) for some scenes is almost pointless. The whole sequence could have happened in Gotham and wouldn't have made a difference except for the idea of Batman being in a bigger world. It's just another excuse for Nolan to do some more jaw dropping visuals. There are flaws in plot, it does drag in sections, sometimes feels like it's filled with filler just to get you from one scene to the other and it also felt like the only film of the trilogy that it really didn't matter if we'd have seen Batman in it at all and would have been equally as good if it was centred around Gordon instead. The Joker could have carried the film on his own. Still I loved it. And thought it was amazing.
The Dark Knight Rises (9): Nolan does the epic everything film. He wants to bring the trilogy to an end. He like to wrap things up in circular fashion akin to Pink Floyds The Wall.To do so he's going to throw everything at it. The Bond homages, the action flick, Star wars, Rocky, Frankenstein, Shawshank Redemption, whatever he can lay his hands on. This is the film where he says sod it and goes all out not caring about criticism. He's going to make it end with a big bang. Some of his reflective rebirth stuff (did anyone else expect there to be a scene where some little hobbits all get on a boat, whilst Sam cries) The film also returns to it's comic book routes, more of the usual suspects as well as others that are to numerous to mention Knighfall, son of the demon and No Mans Land get special nods as well though. I won't go into it to much here as there's plenty of that to come in the main review. This was the Empire strikes back and Return of the Jedi roled into one. It was It was balls out not giving a shit going for it. Yes we'll have some of the usual plot sub layers, reveals but sod it we're gonna have explosions, a big brawl with thousands, and to top it all off a Nuclear countdown bomb. I actually felt it could have gotten away being 2 films and would have been better for it. What the hey I loved it.
So all 3 are exceptional films and great experiences all being equal.
Well except that Begins is the best.
Everyone loves putting labels on things and compartmentalising stuff,I'll happily oblige. So how does it rate in comparison to the previous two. Simple it's equally as good as the previous two. Begins is undoubtedly my favourite and for me and the most complete film but I can happily argue that anyone of them is equally as good as the other. They are 3 distinct films with distinct styles to them. Each has their own gripes and can be nitpicked to death. So as we're comparing them constantly here's my take.
Batman Begins (9): is Nolans open love letter to the character and the comic books. He takes the best of the books that we had been reading once DC finally was able to ignore the CCA and start writing more grown up tales again. The ultimate versions being Batman year one , The Dark Knight Returns and the Long Halloween (which heavily influenced all three films). The film for me is almost flawless and is a drive through of all the greatest moments in Batlore. Everyone is saying this is original and a great version, for us comic book geeks it's more a case of, at last. It is more personal in its feeling and even though the story is very epic (the first half especially), the second is more closed in, darker (visually) and intimate experience in comparison to the other 2.
The Dark Knight (9): Again he takes heavily from the comics (Batman Year one, The long Halloween, Dark Knight returns and the Killing Joke) but this is more a case of Nolan stretching his film wings here. We're treated to an amalgam of Nolans loves. The Dark Knight is a mixture of Bond, heist, cop and good old crime mafia style films all mixed into a lovely cinematic experience that is grand in visual scale and style, musically amazing whilst topped off with a amazing performance by Ledger. There are times where it threatens to collapse under the weight of itself. The city becomes more of a character in this film. More modern and epic in its' scale. It provides the visual and plot backdrops of the film itself. Even moving to Hong Kong (was it Hong Kong) for some scenes is almost pointless. The whole sequence could have happened in Gotham and wouldn't have made a difference except for the idea of Batman being in a bigger world. It's just another excuse for Nolan to do some more jaw dropping visuals. There are flaws in plot, it does drag in sections, sometimes feels like it's filled with filler just to get you from one scene to the other and it also felt like the only film of the trilogy that it really didn't matter if we'd have seen Batman in it at all and would have been equally as good if it was centred around Gordon instead. The Joker could have carried the film on his own. Still I loved it. And thought it was amazing.
The Dark Knight Rises (9): Nolan does the epic everything film. He wants to bring the trilogy to an end. He like to wrap things up in circular fashion akin to Pink Floyds The Wall.To do so he's going to throw everything at it. The Bond homages, the action flick, Star wars, Rocky, Frankenstein, Shawshank Redemption, whatever he can lay his hands on. This is the film where he says sod it and goes all out not caring about criticism. He's going to make it end with a big bang. Some of his reflective rebirth stuff (did anyone else expect there to be a scene where some little hobbits all get on a boat, whilst Sam cries) The film also returns to it's comic book routes, more of the usual suspects as well as others that are to numerous to mention Knighfall, son of the demon and No Mans Land get special nods as well though. I won't go into it to much here as there's plenty of that to come in the main review. This was the Empire strikes back and Return of the Jedi roled into one. It was It was balls out not giving a shit going for it. Yes we'll have some of the usual plot sub layers, reveals but sod it we're gonna have explosions, a big brawl with thousands, and to top it all off a Nuclear countdown bomb. I actually felt it could have gotten away being 2 films and would have been better for it. What the hey I loved it.
So all 3 are exceptional films and great experiences all being equal.
Well except that Begins is the best.
Part 2: The Film itself
“...We came in?”
Have I said I loved it. For me the biggest test is whether I notice time passing and I have to say the film flew by for me. Simple as. The plot of the film has 2 distinct parts, the first half of which feels very much in line with the previous films. We are introduced to a villain who is more than a match for our resident cape wearing socio-path. He has the brains and the brawn. The first half of the film goes to great length to lay the plot down beautifully. The complete breaking of Wayne in every sense of the word to his final metaphorical and physical downfall.
The film should really have been in 3 parts. The breaking followed by the rebuilding followed by the final battle, instead though the second half becomes so rushed and fast it's actually hard at times to keep up with what's going on. The rebuilding and rise happens so quickly that it can't even be seen as an act in itself (Daft as it sounds I would have liked a montage in there, have him chasing chickens and running up some steps whilst looking at a photo of Bane). Instead we go from man with broken back, Qui Gon Jin, to push ups to fully healed of all wounds within what felt like 10 minutes. I know it wasn't but it whizzed by so fast who knew. Then in a unique idea it picks up speed even more, so fast that we end up within the final countdown sequence before we even know it and all idea of time out of the window.
At this point the film has thrown out all idea that it's serious and in a real world and goes all out daft. Everybody goes pantomime, from coppers to civilians. Overacting happens and plot points are plastered all over the screen with big flashing arrows. Bats blows up stuff, has his Rocky Balboa moment v Clubber Lang, blows up some more shit, guns bullets, reveals, snogs, (does anybody not know who Batman is now) and the pretence it's all about some bigger ideal than what it actually is.
As I said it's now a fully fledged big budget superhero tale. Its operatic in it's tragedy and epic in its size showing it's comic book routes on its heart. Plot holes, don't care watch as we blow up more stuff. If Cesar Romero or Burgess Meredith (even Arnie in his Freeze costume)turned up at this point all cackling, gurning and Batman and Robin were tied up to some machine with a countdown, sharks with lasers on their head so on and so forth it would have still fitted.
Then Boom!
Emotions, goodbyes, reveals for the fun of it (Robin), children smiling, Michael Caine looking at a spinning top and Finally a man starting on a quest.
“Isn't this where...”
It was brilliant, it was a ride and most importan it was fun thats what it should be. Nolan is done. The only film he could make next would be the Dark Knight returns and for that we will have to wait for 20 years. So a great film, a great trilogy and we're done.
Have I said I loved it. For me the biggest test is whether I notice time passing and I have to say the film flew by for me. Simple as. The plot of the film has 2 distinct parts, the first half of which feels very much in line with the previous films. We are introduced to a villain who is more than a match for our resident cape wearing socio-path. He has the brains and the brawn. The first half of the film goes to great length to lay the plot down beautifully. The complete breaking of Wayne in every sense of the word to his final metaphorical and physical downfall.
The film should really have been in 3 parts. The breaking followed by the rebuilding followed by the final battle, instead though the second half becomes so rushed and fast it's actually hard at times to keep up with what's going on. The rebuilding and rise happens so quickly that it can't even be seen as an act in itself (Daft as it sounds I would have liked a montage in there, have him chasing chickens and running up some steps whilst looking at a photo of Bane). Instead we go from man with broken back, Qui Gon Jin, to push ups to fully healed of all wounds within what felt like 10 minutes. I know it wasn't but it whizzed by so fast who knew. Then in a unique idea it picks up speed even more, so fast that we end up within the final countdown sequence before we even know it and all idea of time out of the window.
At this point the film has thrown out all idea that it's serious and in a real world and goes all out daft. Everybody goes pantomime, from coppers to civilians. Overacting happens and plot points are plastered all over the screen with big flashing arrows. Bats blows up stuff, has his Rocky Balboa moment v Clubber Lang, blows up some more shit, guns bullets, reveals, snogs, (does anybody not know who Batman is now) and the pretence it's all about some bigger ideal than what it actually is.
As I said it's now a fully fledged big budget superhero tale. Its operatic in it's tragedy and epic in its size showing it's comic book routes on its heart. Plot holes, don't care watch as we blow up more stuff. If Cesar Romero or Burgess Meredith (even Arnie in his Freeze costume)turned up at this point all cackling, gurning and Batman and Robin were tied up to some machine with a countdown, sharks with lasers on their head so on and so forth it would have still fitted.
Then Boom!
Emotions, goodbyes, reveals for the fun of it (Robin), children smiling, Michael Caine looking at a spinning top and Finally a man starting on a quest.
“Isn't this where...”
It was brilliant, it was a ride and most importan it was fun thats what it should be. Nolan is done. The only film he could make next would be the Dark Knight returns and for that we will have to wait for 20 years. So a great film, a great trilogy and we're done.
Part 3: Characters and Acting
The usual characters gave great performances so here's a look at the newbies.
John Blake.
Levitt's character becomes the heart and hero of the film, replacing Gordon from the previous who is now too entwined in the mythos. So a solid performance that anchored the film. That is all though. I wish I could say more about him but I can't. What did he actually bring to the film and the idea that he will become the new Batman doesn't fill me with much hope for the law abiding citizens of Gotham. To be truthful I couldn't care less that he was trying to save kids and poor orphans everywhere. His scenes in the final act pulled me out of the film.
Catwoman:
Hathaway nailed it for me in the transformation from weak maid to cocksure smart cat burglar. That simple change of dour eyes to smirk was enough. She even did sexy a lot better than I though she'd be able to. The moment in the bar where she goes to screaming victim was every bit an example of her powers as Banes instantaneous neck choke crush thing. Smart , sexy, just everything worked for me. I don't think though she'd have run off into the sunset with Wayne as portrayed in the end. Her sense of fun and adventure out of the window for a life of tourism, cafe bars and impending siring of the next gen of Wayne. She'll be off seducing dictators whilst riding off with their nations wealth laughing all the way. The president of the United States will be giving her secrets of the nation in the hopes she'll do something with a cigar. The fact though I'm thinking like this means that I'm more than made up with her in the film. She did femme fatale brilliantly and was more than a match for her testosterone counterparts.
Marion Colltard.
Unfortuanetly I saw this one a mile off due to my prior knowledge and for me she was the weakest in the film. She should have been every bit femme fatale as Hathaway. The back story worked perfectly fine and the seduction of Wayne also made perfect sense. I just never felt her power on screen. At least though they didn't do the usual Bane will scrap Batman and Catwoman will have her female overly kungfu crap fight with the mercenaries offspring. Her death though, hah!
Bane.
Once again Hardy was amazing. Considering the fact he had to act behind a mask that made only is eyes truly visible he did it outstanding. I had no problem understanding his Darth Connery voice throughout the film. The character was immense. Confident strong and the perfect anti Batman. Intelligent and viscous. I had read some reviews where they didn't feel he was menacing enough. I though he was immense, filoled the screen and no point did I feel like I was watching a 5'10 14 stone man but rather a 6'5, 20 stone monster. Heck by the end of the film we even like the guy. His dismantling of Batman in the first battle was incredible, making all his tricks and strategies seem like toys for children ( I especially liked the bit in the dark). The second fight we end up with him becoming more human and a tragic almost Frankenstein victim of circumstance. He goes fetal and even cries. Yet he did it all for love and it was a family love, the want of protecting something innocent in the hell they lived in. He was not weakened by the reveal but made whole, he was part of a bigger scheme but he was the ability to do it. Ubreakeable (Shylaman) makes out the important trope of the soldier villain vs the far more powerful brain villain. Bane is both. He brings the power and heart of a tragic monster whilst totally dismantling an empire, perverting it and using it to crush his adversary physically and mentally. That wasn't Talia, she had her eyes on a bigger prize. It was Bane who broke the Bat. Unfortuanetly for him he hadn't planned on super-batman. I digress. His speech the crowd was perfectly done and he filled every scene he was in. Death, menace and power all came across. Followed by tragedy and empathy when needed. Brilliant.
John Blake.
Levitt's character becomes the heart and hero of the film, replacing Gordon from the previous who is now too entwined in the mythos. So a solid performance that anchored the film. That is all though. I wish I could say more about him but I can't. What did he actually bring to the film and the idea that he will become the new Batman doesn't fill me with much hope for the law abiding citizens of Gotham. To be truthful I couldn't care less that he was trying to save kids and poor orphans everywhere. His scenes in the final act pulled me out of the film.
Catwoman:
Hathaway nailed it for me in the transformation from weak maid to cocksure smart cat burglar. That simple change of dour eyes to smirk was enough. She even did sexy a lot better than I though she'd be able to. The moment in the bar where she goes to screaming victim was every bit an example of her powers as Banes instantaneous neck choke crush thing. Smart , sexy, just everything worked for me. I don't think though she'd have run off into the sunset with Wayne as portrayed in the end. Her sense of fun and adventure out of the window for a life of tourism, cafe bars and impending siring of the next gen of Wayne. She'll be off seducing dictators whilst riding off with their nations wealth laughing all the way. The president of the United States will be giving her secrets of the nation in the hopes she'll do something with a cigar. The fact though I'm thinking like this means that I'm more than made up with her in the film. She did femme fatale brilliantly and was more than a match for her testosterone counterparts.
Marion Colltard.
Unfortuanetly I saw this one a mile off due to my prior knowledge and for me she was the weakest in the film. She should have been every bit femme fatale as Hathaway. The back story worked perfectly fine and the seduction of Wayne also made perfect sense. I just never felt her power on screen. At least though they didn't do the usual Bane will scrap Batman and Catwoman will have her female overly kungfu crap fight with the mercenaries offspring. Her death though, hah!
Bane.
Once again Hardy was amazing. Considering the fact he had to act behind a mask that made only is eyes truly visible he did it outstanding. I had no problem understanding his Darth Connery voice throughout the film. The character was immense. Confident strong and the perfect anti Batman. Intelligent and viscous. I had read some reviews where they didn't feel he was menacing enough. I though he was immense, filoled the screen and no point did I feel like I was watching a 5'10 14 stone man but rather a 6'5, 20 stone monster. Heck by the end of the film we even like the guy. His dismantling of Batman in the first battle was incredible, making all his tricks and strategies seem like toys for children ( I especially liked the bit in the dark). The second fight we end up with him becoming more human and a tragic almost Frankenstein victim of circumstance. He goes fetal and even cries. Yet he did it all for love and it was a family love, the want of protecting something innocent in the hell they lived in. He was not weakened by the reveal but made whole, he was part of a bigger scheme but he was the ability to do it. Ubreakeable (Shylaman) makes out the important trope of the soldier villain vs the far more powerful brain villain. Bane is both. He brings the power and heart of a tragic monster whilst totally dismantling an empire, perverting it and using it to crush his adversary physically and mentally. That wasn't Talia, she had her eyes on a bigger prize. It was Bane who broke the Bat. Unfortuanetly for him he hadn't planned on super-batman. I digress. His speech the crowd was perfectly done and he filled every scene he was in. Death, menace and power all came across. Followed by tragedy and empathy when needed. Brilliant.